Amphetamine alters an EEG marker of reward processing in humans and mice
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The bench-to-bedside development of pro-cognitive therapeutics for psychiatric disorders has been mired by translational failures. This is, in part, due to the absence of pharmacologically sensitive cognitive biomarkers common to humans and rodents. Here, we describe a cross-species translational marker of reward processing that is sensitive to the aminergic agonist, d-amphetamine. Motivated by human electroencephalographic (EEG) findings, we recently reported that frontal midline delta-band power is an electrophysiological biomarker of reward surprise in humans and in mice. In the current series of experiments, we determined the impact of parametric doses of d-amphetamine on this reward-related EEG response from humans (n = 23) and mice (n = 28) performing a probabilistic learning task. In humans, d-amphetamine (placebo, 10 mg, 20 mg) boosted the Reward Positivity event-related potential (ERP) component as well as the spectral delta-band representations of this signal. In mice, d-amphetamine (placebo, 0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, 1.0 mg/kg) boosted both reward and punishment ERP features, yet there was no modulation of spectral activities. In sum, the present results confirm the role of dopamine in the generation of the Reward Positivity in humans, and pave the way toward a pharmacologically valid biomarker of reward sensitivity across species.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some studies reported a lack of AMP effects on inhibitory control, verbal memory, learning, or intelligence.
“However, other studies reported a lack of AMP effects on inhibitory control, as well as verbal memory, learning, inhibitory control or intelligence (Cavanagh et al., 2022; Comer et al., 1996; Fillmore et al., 2005; Ilieva et al., 2013; Makris et al., 2007; Mintzer & Griffiths, 2003; Patat et al., 1996)”
From Systematic reviews of the acute effects of amphetamine on working memory and other cognitive performances in healthy individuals, with a focus on the potential influence of personality traits (2023) · cites this paper as Cavanagh et al., 2022
The Results > Performance section (page not provided) reports no drug effect on performance in mice during a probabilistic learning task, offering limited support for the learning portion. It does not report a lack of amphetamine effects on inhibitory control, verbal memory, or intelligence; in humans, it reports a drug-by-sex interaction rather than a general absence of effect. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFive studies did not find an effect of amphetamine on learning or memory.
“The remaining five studies did not find an effect of AMP on learning or memory (Cavanagh et al., 2022; Comer et al., 1996; Makris et al., 2007; Mintzer & Griffiths, 2003; Patat et al., 1996).”
From Systematic reviews of the acute effects of amphetamine on working memory and other cognitive performances in healthy individuals, with a focus on the potential influence of personality traits (2023) · cites this paper as Cavanagh et al., 2022
The Results > Performance section (page unavailable) reports no drug effect on mice’s task performance, and the small-scale mouse replication found no accuracy difference between drug conditions. But human performance showed a drug-by-sex interaction, with females tending to perform slightly worse at higher doses. The paper therefore does not support an unqualified claim of no effect on learning or memory; it does not report a memory outcome. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Khalifa, A. A. Z., Ichikawa, M., Dai, D., Kubo, S., Black, C. S., Peri, K., McAlear, T. S., Veyron, S., Yang, S. K., Vargas, J., et al. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.52760 · Cited by 1,676 · see citing works
The reward positivity: From basic research on reward to a biomarker for depression
Proudfit, G. H. (2015) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.12370 · Cited by 910 · see citing works
Foti, D., & Hajcak, G. (2009) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.12.004 · Cited by 341 · see citing works
Common medial frontal mechanisms of adaptive control in humans and rodents
Narayanan, N. S., Cavanagh, J. F., Frank, M. J., & Laubach, M. (2013) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3549 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 48
- Angus DJ, Kemkes K, Schutter DJLG, Harmon-Jones E (2015) Anger is associated with reward-related electrocortical activity: Evidence from the reward positivity. Psychophysiology 52: 1271– 1280. 10.1111/psyp.12460 26084980 · DOI
- Baker TE, Holroyd CB (2011) Dissociated roles of the anterior cingulate cortex in reward and conflict processing as revealed by the feedback error-related negativity and N200. Biol Psychol 87: 25– 34. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.01.010 21295109 · DOI
- Balsters JH, Zerbi V, Sallet J, (2020) Primate homologs of mouse cortico-striatal circuits. Elife 9: 1– 24. 10.7554/eLife.53680 PMC7162658 32298231 · DOI
- Bress JN, Foti D, Kotov R, (2013) Blunted neural response to rewards prospectively predicts depression in adolescent girls. Psychophysiology 50: 74– 81. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01485.x 23252717 · DOI · Paper page
- Brown DR, Cavanagh JF (2020) Novel rewards occlude the reward positivity, and what to do about it. Biol Psychol 151:. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107841 31978500 · DOI
- Brown DR, Cavanagh JF (2018) Rewarding images do not invoke the reward positivity: They inflate it. Int J Psychophysiol. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.02.012 PMC6686905 29505851 · DOI
- Brown DR, Jackson TCJ, Cavanagh JF (2021) The reward positivity is sensitive to affective liking. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 10.3758/s13415-021-00950-5 PMC9578330 34599487 · DOI
- Brown DR, Richardson SP, Cavanagh JF (2020a) An EEG marker of reward processing is diminished in Parkinson’s disease. Brain Res 1727:. 10.1016/j.brainres.2019.146541 31704082 · DOI
- Brown DR, Richardson SP, Cavanagh JF (2020b) An EEG marker of reward processing is diminished in Parkinson’s disease. Brain Res 1727: 146541. 10.1016/j.brainres.2019.146541 31704082 · DOI
- Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG (1990) Inferring psychological significance from physiological signals. Am Psychol 45: 16– 28 2297166
- Cavanagh JF (2015) Cortical delta activity reflects reward prediction error and related behavioral adjustments, but at different times. Neuroimage 110: 205– 216. 10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2015.02.007 25676913 · DOI
- Cavanagh JF, Bismark AW, Frank MJ, Allen JJB (2018) Multiple Dissociations between Comorbid Depression and Anxiety on Reward and Punishment Processing: Evidence from Computationally Informed EEG. Comput Psychiatry. 10.1162/cpsy PMC6515849 31149639 · DOI
- Cavanagh JF, Gregg D, Light GA, (2021) Electrophysiological biomarkers of behavioral dimensions from cross-species paradigms. Transl Psychiatry 11: 1– 11 34535625 PMC8448772
- Colquhoun D (2017) The reproducibility of research and the misinterpretation of P values. R Soc Open Sci 4: 1– 22. 10.1101/144337 29308247 PMC5750014 · DOI
- Cools R (2006) Dopaminergic modulation of cognitive function-implications for L-DOPA treatment in Parkinson’s disease. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 30: 1– 23. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.03.024 15935475 · DOI · Paper page
- Cools R, Arnsten AFT (2022) Neuromodulation of prefrontal cortex cognitive function in primates: the powerful roles of monoamines and acetylcholine. Neuropsychopharmacology 47: 309– 328. 10.1038/s41386-021-01100-8 34312496 PMC8617291 · DOI
- Delorme A, Makeig S (2004) EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 134: 9– 21. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009S0165027003003479 [pii] 15102499 · DOI
- Ehlers CL, Phillips E, Wills D, (2020) Phase locking of event-related oscillations is decreased in both young adult humans and rats with a history of adolescent alcohol exposure. Addict Biol 25: 1– 12. 10.1111/adb.12732 PMC6751029 30884076 · DOI
- Ehlers CL, Wills DN, Desikan A, (2014) Decreases in energy and increases in phase locking of event-related oscillations to auditory stimuli occur during adolescence in human and rodent brain. Dev Neurosci 36: 175– 195. 10.1159/000358484 24819672 PMC4125510 · DOI
- Featherstone RE, Melnychenko O, Siegel SJ (2018) Mismatch negativity in preclinical models of schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 191: 35– 42. 10.1016/j.schres.2017.07.039 28768598 · DOI
- Forster SE, Zirnheld P, Shekhar A, (2017) Event-related potentials reflect impaired temporal interval learning following haloperidol administration. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 234: 2545– 2562. 10.1007/s00213-017-4645-2 28601965 · DOI
- Grilly DM, Loveland A (2001) What is a “low dose” of d-amphetamine for inducing behavioral effects in laboratory rats? Psychopharmacology (Berl) 153: 155– 169. 10.1007/s002130000580 11205415 · DOI
- Halsey LG, Curran-Everett D, Vowler SL, Drummond GB (2015) The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nat Methods 12: 179– 185. 10.1038/nmeth.3288 25719825 · DOI
- Heydari S, Holroyd CB (2016) Reward positivity: Reward prediction error or salience prediction error? Psychophysiology 53: 1185– 1192. 10.1111/psyp.12673 27184070 · DOI
- Holroyd CB, Krigolson OE, Lee S (2011) Reward positivity elicited by predictive cues. Neuroreport 22: 249– 52. 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328345441d 21386699 · DOI
- Holroyd CB, Pakzad-Vaezi KL, Krigolson OE (2008) The feedback correct-related positivity: sensitivity of the event-related brain potential to unexpected positive feedback. Psychophysiology 45: 688– 697. https://doi.org/PSYP668 [pii] 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00668.x 18513364 · DOI
- Holroyd CB, Umemoto A (2016) The research domain criteria framework: The case for anterior cingulate cortex. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 71: 418– 443. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.021 27693229 · DOI · Paper page
- Huvermann DM, Bellebaum C, Peterburs J (2021) Selective Devaluation Affects the Processing of Preferred Rewards. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 10.3758/s13415-021-00904-x PMC8455391 33931831 · DOI
- Lakens D (2013) Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol 4: 1– 12. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 24324449 PMC3840331 · DOI · Paper page
- Lueckel M, Panitz C, Nater UM, Mueller EM (2018) Reliability and robustness of feedback-evoked brain-heart coupling after placebo, dopamine, and noradrenaline challenge. Int J Psychophysiol 132: 298– 310. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.01.010 29382555 · DOI
- MacQueen DA, Minassian A, Kenton JA, (2018) Amphetamine improves mouse and human attention in the 5-choice continuous performance test. Neuropharmacology 138: 87– 96. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2018.05.034 29859849 PMC6340711 · DOI
- Meyer A, Lerner MD, De Los Reyes A, (2017) Considering ERP difference scores as individual difference measures: Issues with subtraction and alternative approaches. Psychophysiology 54: 114– 122. 10.1111/psyp.12664 28000251 · DOI · Paper page
- Mueller EM, Burgdorf C, Chavanon ML, (2014a) Dopamine modulates frontomedial failure processing of agentic introverts versus extraverts in incentive contexts. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 14: 756– 768. 10.3758/s13415-013-0228-9 24323704 · DOI
- Mueller EM, Burgdorf C, Chavanon ML, (2014b) The COMT Val158Met polymorphism regulates the effect of a dopamine antagonist on the feedback-related negativity. Psychophysiology 51: 805– 809. 10.1111/psyp.12226 24773408 · DOI
- Mulligan EM, Hajcak G (2017) The electrocortical response to rewarding and aversive feedback: The reward positivity does not reflect salience in simple gambling tasks. Int J Psychophysiol 0– 1. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.11.015 29183793 · DOI
- Nolan H, Whelan R, Reilly RB (2010) FASTER: Fully Automated Statistical Thresholding for EEG artifact Rejection. J Neurosci Methods 192: 152– 62. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.07.015 20654646 · DOI
- Pegg S, Jeong HJ, Foti D, Kujawa A (2021) Differentiating stages of reward responsiveness: Neurophysiological measures and associations with facets of the behavioral activation system. Psychophysiology 58: 1– 16. 10.1111/psyp.13764 PMC7969456 33438278 · DOI
- Peterburs J, Sannemann L, Bellebaum C (2019) Subjective preferences differentially modulate the processing of rewards gained by own vs. observed choices. Neuropsychologia 132: 107139. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107139 31295450 · DOI
- Preuss TM, Wise SP (2022) Evolution of prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychopharmacology 47: 3– 19. 10.1038/s41386-021-01076-5 34363014 PMC8617185 · DOI
- Robble MA, Schroder HS, Kangas BD, (2021) Concordant neurophysiological signatures of cognitive control in humans and rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 1– 11. 10.1038/s41386-021-00998-4 PMC8134486 33746206 · DOI
- Santesso DL, Evins AE, Frank MJ, (2009) Single dose of a dopamine agonist impairs reinforcement learning in humans: evidence from event-related potentials and computational modeling of striatal-cortical function. Hum Brain Mapp 30: 1963– 1976. 10.1002/hbm.20642 18726908 PMC3034238 · DOI
- Schaeffer DJ, Hori Y, Gilbert KM, (2020) Divergence of rodent and primate medial frontal cortex functional connectivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117: 21681– 21689. 10.1073/pnas.2003181117 32817555 PMC7474619 · DOI
- Singer J, Willett JB (2003) Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford
- Sutton RS, Barto AG (1998) Reinforcement learning: an introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
- Threadgill AH, Gable PA (2017) The sweetness of successful goal pursuit: Approach-motivated pregoal states enhance the reward positivity during goal pursuit. Int J Psychophysiol. 10.1016/J.IJPSYCHO.2017.12.010 29274365 · DOI
- Warren CM, Hyman JM, Seamans JK, Holroyd CB (2015) Feedback-related negativity observed in rodent anterior cingulate cortex. J Physiol Paris 109: 87– 94. 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2014.08.008 25237010 · DOI
- Webb CA, Auerbach RP, Bondy E, (2016) Abnormal neural response to feedback in depressed adolescents. J Abnorm Psychol 126: 19– 31 27935729 PMC5215965
- Yu Z, Guindani M, Grieco SF, (2022) Beyond t test and ANOVA: applications of mixed-effects models for more rigorous statistical analysis in neuroscience research. Neuron 110: 21– 35. 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.10.030 34784504 PMC8763600 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kassim, F. M. (2023) · Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental · doi:10.1002/hup.2856 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“The remaining five studies did not find an effect of AMP on learning or memory (Cavanagh et al., 2022; Comer et al., 1996; Makris et al., 2007; Mintzer & Griffiths, 2003; Patat et al., 1996).”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Cavanagh, J. F., Olguin, S. L., Talledo, J. A., Kotz, J. E., Roberts, B. Z., Nungaray, J. A., Sprock, J., Gregg, D., Bhakta, S. G., Light, G. A., Swerdlow, N. R., Young, J. W., & Brigman, J. L.
- Affiliations
- University of New Mexico (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cavanagh, James F.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Psychopharmacology
- Published
- 2022-02-08
- Volume
- 239
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 923-933
- ISSN
- 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-2072
- PMC
- PMC8891070
- OpenAlex
- W4210894929
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6
- FWCI
- 3.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (UH3MH109168)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Keywords
- amphetamine, reward processing, reward positivity, EEG biomarkers, dopamine, probabilistic learning, punishment, cognitive biomarkers, event-related potentials, mice
- MeSH terms
- Amphetamine, Animals, Electroencephalography, Humans, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, Biomarkers, Mice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review